A Few Corrections for the Ceaseless Moloch Commentary

Moloch lizard -
"The thorny dragon is covered in hard, rather sharp spines that dissuade attacks by predators by making it difficult to swallow. It also has a false head on its back. When it feels threatened by other animals, it lowers its head between its front legs, and then presents its false head."

http://welsdocument.blogspot.com/2015/02/additional-reading-for-techlin-case.html?showComment=1425136634264#c3053873536863759626

Warren R. MolochFebruary 27, 2015 at 8:41 PM

With reference to Lenski's NT Commentary, both NPH and CPH are publishing new commentary volumes but neither have produced a complete series since the People's Bible Commentary, which of course is a popular commentary series more like Kretzmann's. It is unfortunate that more of the commentaries of the Wauwatosa Theologians have not been translated and published by NPH, and CPH has not published the translations of the commentaries of Georg Stoeckhardt which were available in mimeograph editions when I was a student at Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne. To this day Stoeckhardt's Romans commentary is only available in an abridged translation of the complete text, with only the first half of the commentary available in a complete translation. Stoeckhardt was supposed to write a commentary on "Isaiah I" to which August Pieper's "Isaiah II" was meant to be the second volume, but Stoeckhardt died after only completing part of his portion of the commentary.
Somebody can check for me, but I believe that Lenski intentionally dedicated his commentary on 2 Corinthians to the faculty of WLS and another commentary to the faculty of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, because the Synodical Conference rejected his false teachings.

GJ - The president of the Synodical Conference, Gausewitz, published his catechism, absent of any mention of UOJ - and Gausewitz was WELS. He died before the odious Brief Statement of 1932 was published. The 1905 German catechism of the Missouri Synod had no mention of UOJ. Both catechisms taught justification by faith. So does the KJV catechism still sold by Concordia Publishing House. To claim the Synodical Conference rejected justification by faith as false teaching is pure hooey, to put it politely. The fanatics who love UOJ are also the ones who promote Church Growth, Emergent Churches, and New Age dogmas. UOJ is mainline apostasy, loved by ELCA and the UCC and the rest of the scoundrels - all in the name of grace - but without the Means of Grace.

Bryan LidtkeFebruary 27, 2015 at 9:15 PM

Mr. Moloch, your logic states that there is unionism one way or another in the WELS regarding this case. Since it has been declared a closed case, there is unionism, correct? Either the WELS allows error or there are those in the WELS who practice error and refuse to leave, thus making the WELS heterodox. Why not put your money where your mouth is and either do something about it or stop criticizing, well, pretty much everybody else involved then?

Warren R. MolochFebruary 27, 2015 at 10:38 PM

Mr. Lidtke, if those who support Mr. Techlin and believe that offense has been given and not removed have choosen (sic) to still remain in the WELS, then it logically follows that they, whatever they may say to the contrary, accept the fact that the case has been closed and do not believe that the offense allegedly given is sufficient reason for them to leave the synod. Their actions demonstrate that their own self-interest rises above the seriousness of the offense which they claim to believe has been given. As long as they are willing to remain in the WELS and are not under disciplinary action, then I must assume that their actions are more important than their words and accept them as being in fellowship with the WELS.
If the WELS chooses not to take action against the supporters of Mr.Techlin because those individuals have chosen to remain in the synod and are not involved in any disciplinary action, then the synod has obviously accepted their action in remaining in the synod rather than any words of theirs regarding the Techlin case as their own final decision regarding the case. If their side of the case of those "offended" was not sustained by Mr. Techlin's congregation or his district and there is no way in which the case can be taken before the synod, and yet they choose to remain as members of the synod, then it logically follows that there is no real issue left to deal with, in spite of all of the talk. It lies with those who are "offended" and yet have decided to remain in the synod to demonstrate how serious they take the "offense" by actions rather than words.
Therefore, I will acknowledge that I was wrong to accuse the synod of "unionism" because the synod accepts in good faith the decision of the those "offended" to remain as members of the synod in spite of their alleged "offense." It is those who remain as members of the synod in spite of their claim of being "offended" who are open to the charge of "unionism," because they are obviously willing to "agree to disagree" regarding the doctrine and practice of fellowship.

MelanchthonFebruary 28, 2015 at 9:17 AM

Just a quick reminder that will all this convoluted logorrhea from Mr. Moloch, he is still almost completely unfamiliar with even the most basic facts regarding the case.

Also, he overlooks the facts that WELS pastors and congregations are actively and openly communing the person formally declared out of fellowship by the errant congregation and the district.

How the Mr. Moloch can imply that this action represents "accepting the synod's decision" beggars belief. No: what it represents is a decision to do the right thing even when the synod directs one to do the wrong thing. It is to be praised that the synod does not stop them or discipline them for ignoring the synod's incorrect action--but this is therefore an admission of past error on the part of the synod..